Bi-logic trap (logic)
A bi-logic trap ('bi' meaning 'two', basically 'two logic' or 'dual logic') is an approach designed to help expose flawed reasoning by combining a binary tree search algorithm, with contradiction reasoning and either-or logic. Fallacy It might be worth noting that a bi-logic trap runs the high risk of an either-or fallacy, however it relies on the stranger correction psychology (in that a stranger will correct you if you are mistaken on something: so if both options are false, the stranger you're asking will correct it by presenting a third option). Usage Before a bi-logic trap can be conducted, two peices of contradictory (seeming) information must be available, either two conflicting statements from the individual, or a statement from the individual that conflicts with a piece of information. There are two types of bi-logic trap: overt and subtle. The differences might seem perplexing, but they are vital to note. Overt is where you question explicitly over the contradiction directly, which you'd do if you know the person has nowhere to evade. Subtle must be used when the contradiction could easily be explained away by a lie, and thus a setting the stage attack must be employed to catch them out on the lie in combination with the bi-logic trap. Overt Say Bob claims Quack the duck is blue, and factual information in actual fact demonstrates clearly Quack the duck is red. An overt bi-logic trap question would go: *So Bob, is Quack the duck blue or red? Which seems simple enough. Bob, being unaware of the evidence that proves him contrary, will openly 'confirm' that Quack the duck is blue (because to say otherwise would contradict his previous statement), of which you close the trap by supplying evidence Quack the duck is red. The follow-up bi-logic question would then expose Bob's lie: *As per this image of Quack the duck, is he blue or red? Bob is then 'trapped' (hence 'bi-logic trap') into either admitting Quack the duck is red and thus he openly and brazenly lied to you about him being blue (which will be exposed to the public, see half of an argument is PR), or he'll have to openly deny the very evidence that Quack the duck is red (which will, again, be exposed to the public that his concept of reality does not line up with evidence). Usually when trapped like this, people go into either story-telling mode or excuse-making mode, rather than admit the truth of their dishonesty or mistake. Story-telling mode and excuse-making mode are both extremely useful as the individual is suspect to making mistakes when constructing their stories or excuses and thus will open up further contradictions, allowing for further setting the stage attacks and contradiction reasoning . Subtle Say Bob again claims Quack the duck is blue, we have a photograph that - what looks like Quack the duck (and we know it's Quack the duck) - is red, but Bob can lie and claim that photo is not Quack the duck and merely looks like Quack the duck (as there are many ducks which may look like Quack the duck). If we use the bi-logic trap overtly, we know Bob will present this excuse and thus 'get away' with the lie (as when cornered individuals tend towards story-telling or excuse-making mode), making the known but easily dismissable proof seem flimsy and preventing any opportunity at exposing Bob's lies. So we have to outsmart Bob by getting indirect but sufficient evidence to prevent him from making the excuse that the photograph is not Quack the duck, this is known as a 'setting the stage attack'. In this case we still use bi-logic questions. We attack the basic premises Bob might use to evade the trap. *Are there any other ducks that look like Quack the duck? This is a simple yes/no answer. A no answer means we've got Bob (it's wise not to stop here and to continue setting the stage), a yes answer means we must proceed. *Is there any way to distinguish Quack the duck from other ducks? If Bob says no, we have to review the information that Quack the duck is red as a possible false conclusion and thus find some way of researching a way to prove the photograph is Quack the duck concretely. If Bob says yes, we check the photograph with the supplied descriptor to determine if it shares the same trait (we don't need a third party to prove this, only for Bob to trip over his own words. Whether or not they're true is irrelevant in a bi-logic trap, so long as they contradict). *Are there any photographs of Quack the duck? If Bob says yes, this means he has to justify why this particular photograph isn't Quack the duck later on (this is called raising the probability, which is similar to setting the stage but relies on probablistic logic and is much weaker in terms of convincing people as it allows for room for error). If he says no, and someone else says it's a photograph of Quack the duck, then it's possible to play people off each other to work out the correct answer via a man-in-the-middle attack (not to be confused with the computer attack of the same name). If Bob is evasive, or manages to answer consistently enough, it might be worth reanalysing the evidence that proves him wrong to check for any flaws or inconsistencies. It's always better to wait it out than to overplay your hand. Relevant See spacing to avoid suspicion when asking subtle bi-logic questions, coupled with your question doesn't make sense (a type of obsfucating confusion).